Legal principle
The statutory question is whether the employer's requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or at a particular place, had ceased or diminished and whether that state of affairs caused the dismissal.
What the court decided
The House of Lords rejected an unnecessarily technical contract-based approach to identifying redundancy and focused on the reduced need for employees to do the work.
The practical test
- 1
Identify the business's requirement for employees to do work of a particular kind or in a particular place.
- 2
Decide whether that requirement ceased or diminished, or was expected to do so.
- 3
Determine whether the reduction caused the employee's dismissal.
How tribunals apply it
- The statutory redundancy question is distinct from whether the selection pool and process were fair.
- A reorganisation can create redundancy even where some tasks continue to be performed.
- The focus is on the need for employees, not simply whether a particular job title survives.
Connected legislation
WorkDisputes tribunal data
Recent decisions involving related issues
These decisions are selected from topic classifications in our public Employment Tribunal dataset. A matching topic does not mean the decision applied this authority directly.
Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination and Other
Employer: Medway Council
All claims were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing; the Tribunal found no unlawful treatment or breach of the relevant regulations.
Legal Issues (4)
- Interpretation of the Fixed-term Employees Regulations 2002 (less favourable treatment)
- pregnancy/maternity discrimination under s18 Equality Act 2010
- automatic unfair dismissal under regulation 10 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (duty to offer suitable alternative vacancy during maternity leave)
- whether a lower-paid role must be offered with salary protection
Reference: 6012100/2024
Unfair Dismissal
Employer: Wickes Building Supplies Ltd
The claim was struck out because the claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal claim, the claim was presented significantly out of time, and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim or comply with case management directions.
Legal Issues (3)
- Jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim: (1) claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous employment
- (2) claim presented out of time (5 months late) with no explanation
- (3) claim struck out for no reasonable prospect of success and failure to actively pursue (Rule 38)
Reference: 6012922/2025
Redundancy Pay
Employer: SBands Ltd
The respondent failed to present a response, and the judge was satisfied on the available material that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £7,117.60.
Legal Issues (2)
- Statutory redundancy payment calculation under sections 162-163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- default judgment under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
Reference: 2501362/2026
Redundancy Pay, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Other
Employer: Unipools Ltd and L K Mindel
The claimant won all claims against the First Respondent (unauthorised deductions, breach of contract, redundancy, and holiday pay) but lost the claim against the Second Respondent, which was dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages
- breach of contract (notice pay)
- redundancy entitlement
- holiday pay - all arising from the employer ceasing trading without meeting statutory and contractual obligations
Reference: 3303488/2025
Redundancy Pay, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Other
Employer: Unipools Ltd and L K Mindel
The claimant succeeded in claims for wages, breach of contract, and redundancy against the First Respondent, but the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages
- breach of contract regarding notice period
- entitlement to statutory redundancy pay
- liability of the second respondent
Reference: 3303489/2025
Redundancy Pay, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Other
Employer: Unipools Ltd and L K Mindel
The claimant succeeded in claims for unpaid wages, notice pay and redundancy pay against the first respondent, but the claim against the second respondent was dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages (Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13)
- breach of contract in respect of notice (wrongful dismissal)
- entitlement to statutory redundancy payment under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.162
- personal liability of director for company debts
Reference: 3303490/2025